Wednesday, 2 November 2016

Same-sex initiation

I completely support same-sex initiation for those who want it.

I have never yet seen an "argument" against same-sex initiation that was any different from the "arguments" against same sex marriage. And yet people persist in putting these tired old arguments forward as if they were new.

Some of these people even have the bare faced effrontery to have a go at bigoted Christians who oppose same sex marriage on the same "grounds" that they themselves oppose same sex initiation. And no one hesitates to call those Christians homophobic - so I'm sorry but why should anti-same-sex initiation people get a free pass?

So let's rehearse those "arguments" shall we?

(1) that only a man and a woman can make babies (therefore only male/female marriage or initiation is valid). Lots of male/female couples can't make babies because they're too old or infertile etc. but they are still married, and no-one denies the validity of their marriage. Fertility doesn't have to be literal, it's symbolic. There are lots of other ways to make polarity and fertility.

(2) that the definition of marriage is "one man, one woman" / that initiations have always been done male/female. Invalid argument because of polygamy, polyandry & ancient examples of same-sex marriage; invalid argument because of same-sex initiation in Freemasonry, other occult orders and in Wicca (father/son; mother/daughter; HPs with strap-on sword; all the people who have actually done same sex initiations, including Alex Sanders).

(3) that God, or the gods, made male & female.
Oh yeah, really, then why are there so many gay animals?

(4) "Because it's the tradition!" 
 Traditions can change / evolve / grow / be reformed. They are not set in stone.

Have I missed any? Does anyone have an argument against same-sex initiation that is substantively different from any of the above?

No comments:

Post a Comment